The gay rape gang that never existed, and how it spread through fundamentalist Christian social media

Earlier in the week, in a response to something that I’d written about Michigan’s “License to Discriminate” legislation having passed the House, a reader by the name of EOS posted a link to a ridiculous video intended to demonstrate, if I understood it correctly, that gay people can, when pushed, be just as intolerant as Christians. In the video, a man calling himself Theodore Shoebat calls various bakeries asking that they make him a cake covered in homophobic slogans. And, when they invariably refuse, he looks knowingly into the camera, like he’s just proven something of great significance. A Christian baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, it would seem, at least to Shoebat, is exactly the same as a regular, non-homophobic baker refusing to spell out “fag” in icing on top of a lemon chiffon cake. The idea was so ridiculous that I decided to search the web for other articles written by Mr. Shoebat. And that’s when I found this, which was posted just a few days ago.


“A horrific event has taken place in Jamaica, in which a group of homosexuals took a man who was about to go jogging, stripped him naked, tied him up, and gang raped him until blood poured out of his anus,” said Shoebat. “We are going to be seeing this type of violence from homosexuals in the future. Expect homosexual rape gangs to be more numerous.”

Such vivid imagery. Blood running from the anus… If it were true, it would be absolutely horrible… Of course, it isn’t, though. And Shoebat could have discovered as much if he’d done even the most rudimentary fact checking. But his objective, I think it’s pretty clear, never was to share the truth. It was to stoke the fires of homophobia and further his fundamentalist, anti-gay agenda. And it worked. According to Facebook, 20 people shared this post of his. And it got a really positive response from his followers. “Kill them all, God will recognize his own,” said one. “Homosexuals are violent,” said another. “Their not all puffy fagits, we need to realize this, militancy is the answer. I don’t want to kill them, I would rather convert them and save them from hell, but if they want a war we will give them it.”

If any of these folks had checked, they would have found that no evidence exists to show that there was an attack of this nature on the day in question. Furthermore, they would have found that it’s not unusual for fake stories such as this to run in the Jamaica Observer, where this piece of propaganda originated. The paper’s owner, Gordon “Butch” Stewart, the conservative owner of Sandals resorts, apparently has a reputation for this kind of thing. According to a November, 2014 feature in Vice, “LGBT rights have featured heavily in (the pages of the Jamaica Observer) over the past six months and, although the paper claims to support freedom of expression and balanced journalism, critics note that some of the content has been overtly anti-gay.” One article, appearing beneath the headline “Homo Thugs!,” warned of “gun-toting gays” taking over Jamaican towns. And , not so coincidentally, these articles about armed gays, and the rape of straight men, came out at a time when Jamaicans were actively debating so-called “anti-buggery” laws directed against homosexuals… Oh, and it’s probably also worth noting that, between 1981 and 2004, Sandals resorts barred gay couples.

As for the image that Shoebat chooses to use in the above post, it isn’t of a gay Jamaican gang. A reverse image search revealed it to be a photo taken in Kenya. And the men pictured weren’t masked because they were in the process of committing a crime. They were masked because they were protesting an anti-homosexuality bill which had been passed by Uganda’s parliament and they were, quite justifiably, fearful of violent retribution… And, speaking of anti-gay violence, it doesn’t just happen in Africa. Jamaica has a long history of it as well.

Here, if you’d like to hear more about this event, which didn’t happen, and what it means for the future of mankind, is Theodore Shoebat.

Homosexual men, who will lift a lot of weights, they’re very robust, they’re very strong, and they will go after people that they don’t like, and they will sodomize them… It’s already happening!” -Theodore Shoebat

This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, Observations, Other, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Anonymous
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    Didn’t we have another fake case of a gay gang?

  2. A Nonymous
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 1:44 am | Permalink

    Soooo… by Shoebat’s logic, all we have to do to end rape of women is to persecute straight men, deny them the right to get married, etc?

  3. EOS
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 4:23 am | Permalink

    You’ve stooped to a new low with this post. My link was not an endorsement of Theodore Shoebat. Attacking this man for something else he did does not address the issue in the video I posted. I didn’t research his life history before I shared a video that clearly demonstrates the need for legislation to protect Chrisitan viewpoints from overzealous antidiscrimination ordinances that favor homosexuals. The Jamaican video never spread through fundamentalist Christian social media. No one was asked to write fag on a cake.

    The point is, Chrisitan bakers, photographers, and property owners have been heavily fined and taken to court for declining to participate in homosexual weddings. Yet 13 homosexual owned bakeries on the video declined to decorate a cake with the words, “Gay Marriage is Wrong.” Are they not a public accommodation? Where’s the ACLU? Who thinks they should be required by law to use their privately owned business to advocate a position with which they strongly disagree?

  4. EOS
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 4:30 am | Permalink

    Christian. Twice!

  5. Eel
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    Anonymous, there was a Young Republican in Ann Arbor a few years ago who claimed to have been beaten up by a gay gang. He wasn’t. It was his friends who beat him up and smashed his eye socket.

  6. 734
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    I find it interesting, EOS, that after reading this post your first thought was that Mark had reached a new low. You might want to read it again and reevaluate who it was that reached the new low.

  7. Kim
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Me thinks Mr. Shoebat has spent a great deal of time thinking about these “robust” young gay men lifting weights.

  8. EOS
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 8:59 am | Permalink


    So in your mind, expecting equal treatment under the law is a new low?

  9. EOS
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 9:00 am | Permalink


    There you go. Insinuating someone has homosexual tendencies is a negative?

  10. site admin
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    The case you’re thinking of involved a young man by the name of Justin Zatkoff.

  11. Posted December 19, 2014 at 9:39 am | Permalink


  12. Mr. Y
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    It reminds me of the antisemitic newspaper articles circulating in Germany before World War II about Jews being involved in white slavery, kidnapping good Christian woman and selling them into prostitution. All you need is for one person to put something into print and others can then report on it as fact.

  13. Meta
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 9:55 am | Permalink

  14. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Kim is not necessarily saying there is something negative about being gay. The theory which states that folks who are obsessively preoccupied with the “immorality” of other people’s sex lives are still struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality and secret desires, is, almost a fact, in my opinion. We have all seen examples of feverishly anti gay people who later turn out to have been latent homosexuals…It happens over and over again to the point that it has become a true cliche..Not knowing that you are gay is the NEGATIVE, yet it is forgivable, because there are many cases where there is a lot of pressure from family and society to be heterosexual…If you are in the business of baking cakes, then bake the cakes!

  15. Steve Swan
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    In my experience, nothing makes a wedding cake taste better than Christian tears.

  16. Kim
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    I didn’t make any judgement call. I just found it interesting that he took the time in his video to imagine these “robust” gay young men lifting weights. I expected him to go on and talk about their rippling muscles, their intoxicating musky smell, and the comparative merits of their cocks.

  17. EOS
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    O.K. Maybe Ted is a latent homosexual who spreads lies across the internet. Does anyone want to talk about the original issue? Should a homosexual baker be required by law to bake a cake that says Gay Marriage is Wrong? Should an African American restaurant owner be required to cater a KKK function? And if not, why are Christians required to participate in homosexual weddings?

  18. Taco Farts
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Weddings aren’t homosexual. People are.

    There’s a very simple solution to this issue. If you want to have the right to refuse service to gay people, simply put a sign up in your window.

    “Don’t want gay customers? Great. Let us know who you are. Put up a list online, hang signs in your windows, and we will take our business elsewhere.

    Homophobic bakers… will do no such thing of course. Because hater bakers know that putting “We Don’t Serve Gay People” signs in their windows will not only cost them our business—business they don’t want—but also the business of our straight friends, family members, and neighbors. Business they do want. And they’ll also lose the business of fair-minded straight people who think discrimination is wrong. And they’ll lose the business of straight people who worry about where this kind of selective, hypocritical, faith-rationalized discrimination could ultimately lead.”

  19. Eel
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Jesus could wash the feet of prostitutes, but you can’t bake a cake and hand it to a gay man?

  20. Posted December 19, 2014 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    Poor EOS, always the victim.

  21. Posted December 19, 2014 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Why are conservatives so incredibly boring? They repeat the same tired stories over and over again, while offering nothing new. Perhaps it is just a good way of avoiding have to think about other possibilities.

    Who give a fuck about this stupid cake?

    I have learned through EOS that conservative America is simply uninteresting.

  22. 734
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    Not a very good solution, Taco. Stores with segregated lunch counters still did good business. The truth is, people would frequent a “No Fags” bakery. It hurts to admit it, but it’s true.

  23. Posted December 19, 2014 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    EOS: A bigot refusing to serve a homosexual is not the same as a homosexual refusing to serve a bigot. That’s because there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, but bigotry is wrong. Whether the bigot is Christian or not is immaterial.

  24. anonymous
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    EOS, do you ever look around at the people you associate with, like Ted, and wonder if maybe you’re on the wrong side?

  25. EOS
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    No. I don’t associate with Ted. Found the video on the internet. Did you notice that the link that Mark used to prove Ted’s Jamaica story was fabricated was a personal blog of an individual who goes by the name Satan? Not a very high standard of journalistic integrity.

    Thanks for everyone’s comments. I’m beginning to see how your thought process works. If I agree with you then it’s O.K. to dis anyone, but if I disagree with you then I’m a bigot. All the bakeries that were fined and brought to court serve homosexuals all the time and treat them with the respect due any customer. But a wedding cake involves a significant involvement in an event that many consider to be a sinful activity. It violates the free exercise clause of the 1st ammendment.

  26. Krab
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    How does a wedding cake require more of a “significant involvement”? I bought a wedding cake once. I picked it out of a book, paid for it, and had it delivered. The baker didn’t come over to my house and watch my significant other and I make love. We didn’t all put the fronting on while holding hands. It’s a damn cake. You order it. A baker makes it. And you eat it.

    Also, EOS, the License to Discriminate did not pass the Senate today as you had predicted. Sorry if that ruins your holidays.

  27. Posted December 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    EOS: Um, I didn’t say you were a bigot because I disagreed with you. I said that a business owner who discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation is a bigot. How would you define a bigot?

  28. Dan
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Why would they care if providing a cake to a couple of gay dudes is a sin? Just close your eyes and say your sorry, and you’re all square with the man upstairs.

  29. kjc
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    “But a wedding cake involves a significant involvement in an event that many consider to be a sinful activity.”

    this has got to be the most sinful pairing of morality and rationality in the service of rhetorical argument that i’ve seen since…your previous post on the same topic. you’re not even this dumb. despising gay people and feeling marginalized for it sucks i guess, but you asked for it when you reduced Christianity to this silly finger wagging hyperbolic paranoia. stop projecting your shitty feelings onto the logical universe. freely exercise some constraint.

  30. Posted December 19, 2014 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    EOS is a bigot, for sure, but mostly s/he is simply uninteresting.

    How did we get from a fabricated story of evil gay rape gangs to this stupid incident of a narrow minded Colorado baker and a stupid wedding cake?

    One time, I dropped off a printing job to Kolossos Printing (yes, I will name them). They couldn’t print it because the Christian plate guy refused. He read the entire liner notes and found “Hail Satan” somewhere in the text and it violated his religious sensibilities.

    I was livid. I could care less about his religion. What right did he have to violate mine and particularly as a poorly paid employee? If he doesn’t like what people get printed, perhaps he should find a new job.

    If he worked at a Wal Mart, would he refuse to ring up Slayer CDs?

    Again, this cake thing is just so stupid and pretty indicative of the right’s horribly miopic worldview. It’s like they put stories on repeat. If it is not wedding cakes, it Benghazi.

    Sad, sad.

  31. Posted December 19, 2014 at 10:48 pm | Permalink


  32. Matt
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    The discussion is illuminating about where we most consider “rights” to come from; property and ownership. It’s been “do gay bakery owners have a right not to bake a homophobic cake”, do “homophobic bakery owners have a right to reject a gay cake.”

    As with the “Religious Freedom” debate over the provision of health care, all the rights are with the owner, the employer. What about my rights, as an employee not have the religious whims of my boss affect my health care? Why is the employee that has to pee in a cup for a job, it’s the owners and managers who make the most significant decisions. I wonder how many Wall Street Crimes were done under the influence, no demand to piss in cups there. But if your seeking food stamps?

    I take it for granted that without some measure of force, legal or social, bigots will discriminate if allowed. The public isn’t all the’s the public. If folks don’t want to serve the public, don’t go into business. Your rights don’t trump mine, ever.

  33. Jcp2
    Posted December 19, 2014 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    I am trademarking “traditional Benghazi cake.”

  34. EOS
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 1:00 am | Permalink

    I wouldn’t require homosexual bakers to provide a cake for a pro traditional marriage celebration nor would I require a devout Christian to provide a cake for a pro homosexual celebration. The free exercise of one’s belief system does not harm another individual in either case and there is no compelling reason for government intervention to restrict an individual choice. I think a bigot is someone who would find only one of the two scenarios to be intolerable.

  35. Kjc
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    Devout in this case sounds more like petty. Find me a gay baker who refuses to make a cake for a heterosexual wedding. Then we”ll compare. Or a gay couple who want a wedding cake that says “Christians are evil bigots.”

    Or try thinking of all of us as humans who are precious. You can find that in the Bible somewhere I’m sure. Probably not on a dog eared page in yours.

  36. EOS
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    Let’s look at the facts of the most publicized case. Barronelle Stutzman is a grandmother and florist in Richland, Washington. She had a ten year friendship with Rob Ingersoll, a gay man. He was a regular customer of her business. Rob and Barronelle’s friendship was warm, cordial, and based on a mutual appreciation for creativity, beauty, and flowers. She politely declined designing floral arrangements for Rob’s same-sex ceremony. Rob understood her strongly held religious beliefs and accepted her choice. Neither he nor his partner filed a complaint. Seizing a political opportunity, the Attorney General of the State of Washington and the ACLU are suing the business, Arlene’s Flowers, and also her personally. Her business, house, and all personal assets are at risk. Rob and Baronelle remain friends. There is no hate or bigotry involved, just a woman practicing her faith in obedience to her God.

  37. Posted December 20, 2014 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    EOS: Why do you keep equating intolerance with Christianity? You don’t have to be homophobic to be Christian, just as you don’t have to be Christian to be homophobic. There are Christians who are racist and antisemitic, and find Bible quotes to back them up, but you don’t have to be like them either.

  38. EOS
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Christianity is neither intolerant nor homophobic. Though He was without sin, Jesus did not cast the first stone against the woman caught in adultery. Yet He told her, “Go and sin no more”. If a society embraces sinful behaviors and affirms those who practice these behaviors, then more people will be condemned for eternity. But every day a person wakes up on the green side of the grass is an opportunity to repent and change their behavior.

  39. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Selling cakes and flower arrangements for a ceremony is not endorsing a marriage one way or the other. Cakes and flowers are not essential to marriage gay or otherwise. Unless the baker and florist are forced by the state to help out with the consummation then there is no conflict with someone else’s religious practices. Exercise free speech by telling the gay couple that you do not agree with gay sex when they are filling out the cake order if you want–but bake the cakes! Nobody is asking anyone to participate in a sin…

  40. Posted December 20, 2014 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Well, we’re in agreement on that: Christianity is neither intolerant nor homophobic. So why do you think homosexuality is a sin, and why do you think that idea is essential to Christianity? And why are the sex lives of consenting adults anyone else’s business?

    The largest Protestant denomination in the US, the Southern Baptist Convention, was founded explicitly to support slavery and white supremacy, and for years its members considered integration and miscegenation sins. They eventually realized that they were wrong. Intolerance is not a virtue.

  41. EOS
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Frosted Flakes,
    It’s not your call to determine what constitutes my religious exercise.

    Both the Old and New Testaments describe homosexual practice as sinful. Trusting God and obeying His commands are essential to Christian life. I do not think your intolerance of my beliefs is a virtue.

  42. Posted December 20, 2014 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    As you well know, you can find something in the Bible to justify anything. Historically, some Christians have found passages to justify slavery, plural marriage, and genocide. Few Christians follow the dietary restrictions in Leviticus. Jesus explicitly ordered his followers to hate their parents, to go shoeless, and to live by begging. Fortunately, most Christians don’t do that either. It’s 2014 now, and the world has changed.

    It’s funny that you think me trying to dissuade you from hating your gay neighbor is intolerance. Homophobia is wrong, and arguing against it is indeed a virtue.

  43. EOS
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    The world has changed but God hasn’t. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

  44. EOS
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    I don’t hate homosexuals. Not joining them in sin and refusing to affirm that their activities are no longer considered sin, is a far cry from hate. In fact, it’s the opposite.

  45. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    It has been awhile, but I believe in the past that religious groups were granted exception if the practice in question is found to be essential to the particular religious group. So, certain native American tribes use hallucinogenic drugs legally and Amish children can skip school for example. I don’t see how it will be possible to show that NOT baking cakes and NOT making flower arrangements for gay marriage ceremonies is essential to your religious practice. It just doesn’t make sense that this is a place where an exemption should be granted.

  46. Frosted Flakes
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    I am sorry I just don’t see the baker “joining in sin”. Plus nothing is stopping the baker from exercising freedom of speech by informing the gay couple that they are, in the baker’s opinion, living sinfully. In my mind freedom of speech is a great equalizer…

  47. EOS
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Americans have a right to live by their personal beliefs. Homosexuals are free to engage in celebrations, but they cannot require other persons to participate against their will. I do not need to petition the government to get an exemption in order to avoid being an active participant and making a profit from any activity which I believe to be sinful. Our rights come from God. Governments are instituted by the people to secure those rights. Just as there will always be people who choose not to accept religion, there will always be people who will choose not to accept homosexual practices. No government can mandate acceptance of either.

  48. Patrice
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    EOS, indeed we all have the right to live by our personal beliefs.

    Business takes place, here, in a multi-cultural public square. In order for it to function properly, all humans must be treated with respect for who they are and for their beliefs. So yah, you can say “homosexuality is wrong” all you want, but you cannot refuse business on that basis because that punishes someone for having a different belief than yours.

    Sure, there will always be people who don’t accept gays. There will always be those who think blacks and browns inferior. Also women, the poor, disabled, mentally ill. They are free to be loud about it (and they are, as are you about yours) but they are not free to make people pay for it economically because that is a punishment.

    It’s very simple really. You don’t want people to do that to you, so don’t do it to them. (I hear a lot about “persecution” from some Christians these days.) The Golden Rule, yes?

    And also central to Christianity is something about loving others as self. Give it a try.

  49. EOS
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Gambling is legal. If I own an establishment, it would be wrong to refuse service to someone because they gamble. But I can’t be compelled to rent my establishment for the purpose of gambling. I respect your right to gamble, but you have no right to compel me to gamble myself or profit from gambling. Tolerance means we respect each other’s right to hold differing opinions, not that we accept both opinions as equally valid. Asking someone to spend their money elsewhere does not harm them economically. Why doesn’t the golden rule apply to gay bakeries asked to make pro-traditional marriage cakes? When I apply the golden rule, I don’t compel others to support my beliefs against their will, and I appreciate it if they do likewise.

  50. Patrice
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    EOS, because your beliefs do not allow gambling, you’d never open a gambling establishment. If you had a belief against cake, you would not be a cake baker. In a multi-cultural society, cake bakers serve all who come into their bakery to buy. But they do not serve those who do not eat cake for reasons of personal belief.

    Take halal or kosher. People’s beliefs cause them to prepare foods in particular ways, but they sell to any who come to buy. They keep their own beliefs while at the same time opening the produce to all buyers. Halal is bought by gays as well as Christians and Jews, even though conservative Islam carries biases against all of them. It is a matter of hospitality, really.

    In a culture such as ours, one person’s beliefs must not economically punish another’s beliefs.

    I do not understand why so many Americans Christians are parsimonious, more than are most American Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists, even though their Jesus represented generosity from beginning to end. It seems to me they believe there’s not enough goodness to go around, so they fiercely protect what they find. I find it bewildering.

  51. Patrice
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    EOS, one more thing.

    Of course it punishes someone when you won’t bake a cake for them because they are gay (or whatever the bias). People go to bakeries that are closest to them, or they choose one for its excellence. Disallowing either is an economic punishment on them.

    But if you will disallow for gays, why wouldn’t you disallow also for Jews and Mormons and Muslims and gamblers and porn stars and Hindus? Your stance makes no logical sense even from within your own system.

  52. EOS
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    Parsimonious??? You’ve got to be kidding. American Christians give more of their time, talents, and wealth than any other segment of our population. Christian charities are the predominate humanitarian force in the world. Hospitals, disaster relief, adoption agencies, bringing food and water to the hungry, housing, caring for the persecuted. All the other countries in the world combined do not provide as much charitable donations as do American Christians. You are incredibly misinformed.

  53. Patrice
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Parsimonious towards others unlike you, yes. Also yes, a lot of money has traditionally been spent on missions and that has included the poor, but the majority of giving goes to church budgets. I am a PK so I know how it goes.

    Do not confuse the giving of a wealthy people with that given by religious conviction. Also do not confuse giving from a sense of superiority from giving through brotherhood.

    But maybe you can tell me why Christians are so judgemental as to withhold hospitality that other faiths give freely? As I said earlier, I find it bewildering.

  54. EOS
    Posted December 20, 2014 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    Nope. You couldn’t be more wrong.

  55. Posted December 21, 2014 at 11:09 am | Permalink


  56. Posted December 21, 2014 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    “Homosexual men, who will lift a lot of weights, they’re very robust, they’re very strong, and they will go after people that they don’t like, and they will sodomize them… It’s already happening!” -Theodore Shoebat

    This does sounds like some crazy shit that EOS would post, along with a link to some dubious right wing website.

  57. D'Real
    Posted December 21, 2014 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    EOS, Frosted Flakes, Peter Larson and I sat next to each last night in dark, warm and moist lounge, while dozens of people frolicked upstairs on the dance floor. Mr. Mann projected images of anuses of all shapes, sizes, and colors at a multicolored sheet. #KrampusBall2014 was the shit, yo!

  58. D'Real
    Posted December 21, 2014 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    EOS, Frosted Flakes, Peter Larson and I sat next to each last night in a dark, warm and moist lounge, while dozens of people frolicked upstairs on the dance floor.* Wait, sorry! What fuck are we talking about?

  59. Posted December 22, 2014 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    That was in my dream.

    Religious freedom:

  60. Anonymous
    Posted January 6, 2015 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Another person for EOS to buddy up to.

    “A former cop-turned-evangelical pastor was arrested last week on dozens of sex crime charges.

    James Worley, senior pastor at Powell Valley Church in Oregon, was arrested Dec. 30 on 37 counts – including two counts of rape, 20 counts of sexual abuse, 11 counts of sodomy, one count of attempted sodomy and three counts of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct.

    An indictment filed Dec. 16 showed the alleged abuse took place between 2002 and 2004, when the victims were under the ages of 12 and 14 years old, reported KATU-TV.

    Prosecutors said they don’t believe Worley was a pastor at the time of the abuse, although they believe there are additional victims.

    Worley was fired from the Tillamook, Oregon, Police Department in 2007 for ongoing misconduct – including unethical citation writing, destroying marijuana evidence in the field, excessive Internet use while on duty, creating sexually explicit advertisements, and making unwanted sexual advances to a woman at a 911 dispatch center.

    He complained to city officials that he had been poorly trained and that supervisors never told him what he was doing wrong, the station reported.

    Worley is active on social media and maintaining Pastor Jamie’s Blog.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Sea Serpent